Cause and Effect and Global Warming

[Red Dawn]

Uh...guys...the point of the post that started this thread is the fact that the IPCC itself ... or at least the group that wrote Chapter 9 of its latest Physical Science Basis report...concedes that unequivocal declaration of a cause and effect relationship between human activity and observed changes in the climate would require controlled experiments that are not possible.

I'm not sure why you have to make things up out of whole cloth to support your argument.

The IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and NASA have never, not once, claimed that it's unequivocable that human activities are warming the earth.

Science is virtually never able to prove anything with 100% certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt. 400 years after Isacc Newton scientists, are still debating the causes and origin of gravity. Science deals in probabilities, not absolute 100% truths.

IPCC and every other major international and national scientific organization on the planet have conclude that global warming is happening, and its highly likely that the major cause of it is human pollution.

If you're waiting for 100%, bullet proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusions you either don't understand science, or your asking us to wait for 400 years until science in 99.99% certain.

 

[elvis]

Uh...guys...the point of the post that started this thread is the fact that the IPCC itself ... or at least the group that wrote Chapter 9 of its latest Physical Science Basis report...concedes that unequivocal declaration of a cause and effect relationship between human activity and observed changes in the climate would require controlled experiments that are not possible.

I'm not sure why you have to make things up out of whole cloth to support your argument.

The IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and NASA have never, not once, claimed that it's unequivocable that human activities are warming the earth.

Science is virtually never able to prove anything with 100% certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt. 400 years after Isacc Newton scientists, are still debating the causes and origin of gravity. Science deals in probabilities, not absolute 100% truths.

IPCC and every other major international and national scientific organization on the planet have conclude that global warming is happening, and its highly likely that the major cause of it is human pollution.

If you're waiting for 100%, bullet proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusions you either don't understand science, or your asking us to wait for 400 years until science in 99.99% certain.

Global warming is happening. Scientists do not agree on its cause. In order to draw cause and effect, one must conduct a controlled experiment, which cannot be done with this issue.

I am not ready to say its manmade simply because Al Gore won an Academy Award.

 

[Red Dawn]

Ask and ye shall recieve that and a whole lot more:
Global Warming Science in Perspective.

FAIL

I've never heard of your obscure website, and it is run by some dude named "Gary Novak", who labels himself an "independent scientist".

Gary Novak has a master’s degree in biochemistry, specialising in yeast physiology.

According to him, ‘mental pain’ forced him out of graduate school.... and he retreated to the peace of a vacated farm in South Dakota, were he has been ever since.

Midweek Cuckoo:Gary Novak « moonflake

So, your "indepedent scientist" has no expertise and no training in climate science.

He doesn't have a PhD.

And he appears to be some kook who lives on a farm in south dakota and isn't employed by any credible research university or international science body.

 

[Silver Diva]

I take a middle of the road approach to global warming. I believe that global warming is a reality. However, I am not one hundred percent sure whether global warming is because of the cycles of nature, or for manmade reasons. But I do believe that the consequences of global warming can be devastating. And so it makes sense to take steps to curb it if we can. For my part, I switched to CFLs over the past year. Probably not a huge step, but it cannot hurt. Last summer, I kept my house at 80 degrees, and used ceiling fans where I could. Again, small steps!

 

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not sure why you have to make things up out of whole cloth to support your argument.

The IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and NASA have never, not once, claimed that it's unequivocable that human activities are warming the earth.

Science is virtually never able to prove anything with 100% certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt. 400 years after Isacc Newton scientists, are still debating the causes and origin of gravity. Science deals in probabilities, not absolute 100% truths.

I haven't made anything up at all. And, as I wrote in another thread yesterday, that argument about science never being able to "prove" anything with "100%" certainty is a frequently employed red herring to distract attention from the fact that the conclusion under discussion is not established at the highest level of certainty. When it comes to cause and effect, the highest level of certainty is associated with inference supported through controlled experimentation. After that maybe the highest level is observational data involving a large number of subjects. Global warming involves one subject; the Earth. Even in an observational sense, there is not even another subject that has not been exposed to the "treatment" available to compare the "treatment" subject (the Earth) to.

Science may not know the cause of gravity, but they know a lot about what gravity causes. One can indeed make precise predictions. If someone drops a shot put from a baloon that is at a known altitude it is possible to predict, for example, how long it will take for that shotput to reach the ground within very narrow limits with 100% certainty. And there is certainly 100% certainty that it will fall toward the earth. And there is 100% certainty that gravity caused it to do that. And there are a lot of things like that in science.

But theories about the impact of human activity on the climate aren't like that; and they are not even close.

 

[Old Rocks]

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it will do in the atmosphere. We do not know what all the feedbacks will do. That is why we are being surprised that the warming is proceeding far faster than predicted. The Arctic Ice Cap was not supposed to see this degree of melting untill 2050. We did not expect to see artic clathrates outgassing until 2100.

Rather than there being an uncertainty that we are creating a catastrophic situation for ourselves, the uncertainty is that it is happening faster than predicted.

That "Uncertainty" that you like to refer to, is, as stated in the report, a 95% certainty that we are the primary factor. Would you take an airplane if it had a 95% certainty of crashing?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Relevant experiments

That's EnviroNazi code for, "experiments which back up the predetermined propaganda position."

Ones that don't do this, read: REAL science, don't. Therefore they are called "irrelevant."

But they know that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Relevant experiments

That's EnviroNazi code for, "experiments which back up the predetermined propaganda position."

Ones that don't do this, read: REAL science, don't. Therefore they are called "irrelevant."

But they know that.

And your statements are backed up with what evidence?

 

[FactFinder]

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it will do in the atmosphere. We do not know what all the feedbacks will do. That is why we are being surprised that the warming is proceeding far faster than predicted. The Arctic Ice Cap was not supposed to see this degree of melting untill 2050. We did not expect to see artic clathrates outgassing until 2100.

Rather than there being an uncertainty that we are creating a catastrophic situation for ourselves, the uncertainty is that it is happening faster than predicted.

That "Uncertainty" that you like to refer to, is, as stated in the report, a 95% certainty that we are the primary factor. Would you take an airplane if it had a 95% certainty of crashing?

I am becoming convinced that you are nothing but a party hack. I showed you earlier today form you own favored NASA site that the 2007 melting was from a wind shift that pushed ice out to warmer waters. You also have seen that the ice is in recovery mode. You also know that there has been no sunspots for about a year and a half. That we are approaching a solar minimum but haven't gotten there yet. You also know that the planet has been cooling since 2001.

So since you know all this and keep backtracking, repeating the same nonsense I now believe you care nothing about the science and are a mere puppet propagandizer.

 

[FactFinder]

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee Weather News Story - WISN Milwaukee

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

 

[Old Rocks]

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee Weather News Story - WISN Milwaukee

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Earth & Climate
Global Warming
Climate
Environmental Issues
Weather
Severe Weather
Geography
Reference
Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
Instrumental temperature record
Temperature record
Greenland ice sheet
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

 

[jeffrockit]

I am waiting for scientist to tell us what the earth's optimum temp should be. If we do not have the answer to that, how do we know that the earth is too warm or is headed that way?

 

[FactFinder]

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee Weather News Story - WISN Milwaukee

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Earth & Climate
Global Warming
Climate
Environmental Issues
Weather
Severe Weather
Geography
Reference
Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
Instrumental temperature record
Temperature record
Greenland ice sheet
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

It was the winds stupid...

NASA - NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

 

[Chris]

I am waiting for scientist to tell us what the earth's optimum temp should be. If we do not have the answer to that, how do we know that the earth is too warm or is headed that way?

Because the poles are melting.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I am waiting for scientist to tell us what the earth's optimum temp should be. If we do not have the answer to that, how do we know that the earth is too warm or is headed that way?

Because the poles are melting.

Well...given that it's believed that the planet had no permanent ice caps during most of its history and most of the history of life on it...what is it that makes the absence of permanent ice caps an indicator that the earth is "too warm?"

 

[JohnStOnge]

That "Uncertainty" that you like to refer to, is, as stated in the report, a 95% certainty that we are the primary factor. Would you take an airplane if it had a 95% certainty of crashing?

You're hitting upon another problem I have with the IPCC. They use terms like "likely" and "confidence" as though they're talking about quantitative certainty levels when what they're really talking about is judgement. Here are some footnotes from the IPCC Physical Science Basis Summary for Policy Makers:

6 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to
indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or
a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely
< 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5% (see Box TS.1 for more
details).

7 In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confi dence have
been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying
science: very high confi dence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance
of being correct; high confi dence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of
being correct (see Box TS.1)

Underlines added for emphasis. What they're doing is qualitatively putting "numbers" on "expert judgement." That differs from the pure quantitative nature of true "confidence levels." For example: If someone does an experiment to see if fertilizer makes plants grow faster, they randomly assign some plants to get the treatment and randomly assign others to be controls. When they finish the experiment, they measure the plants in each group and see if the difference in growth rates would likely to have occured if the fertilizer had no effect. If a "significant" difference at 95% confidence is achieved, they're saying that if they ran the experiment an infinite number of times under circumstances in which the fertilizer had no effect they'd only get a difference in growth rates at least as large as that observed 5% of the time.

That is NOT what the IPCC is saying. The IPCC is just kind of arbitrarily putting a number on "expert judgement." They do NOT have a quantitative certainty level.

 

[jeffrockit]

I am waiting for scientist to tell us what the earth's optimum temp should be. If we do not have the answer to that, how do we know that the earth is too warm or is headed that way?

Because the poles are melting.

That doesn't answer the question. What is the earth's optimum temperature? That's like saying "because I said so". Try again?

 

[jeffrockit]

I am waiting for scientist to tell us what the earth's optimum temp should be. If we do not have the answer to that, how do we know that the earth is too warm or is headed that way?

Because the poles are melting.

Well...given that it's believed that the planet had no permanent ice caps during most of its history and most of the history of life on it...what is it that makes the absence of permanent ice caps an indicator that the earth is "too warm?"

My thoughts too. He had no answer because if we do not know that, how do we know that the earth is getting too warm.

 

[Sinatra]

While my own opinions is humbly biased, I must say that the common sense participants in this thread have won the day.

The IPCC has been proven time and again - (links already provided previously) to base estimates on statistical conjecture and far too little actual science.

We also know that for the last decade, the earth's temperatures have actually declined a bit, with possible theories ranging from decreased solar activity, to Leroux's theories on regional fluctuations, etc.

The most recent Antarctic study published in Nature was also soundly dissproven - much like the pro-man-made global warming posts in here.

Congratulations to the common sense participants of this forum - it makes for worthy reading to see so many well informed participants.

And to those global warming proponents - I say thank you as well. I welcome your views, as much as I disagree with them, for such views are an important component to the overall dialogue. That being said, if I truly believed there was man-made global warming, I would be the first to call an alarm. I am a father, and if so blessed, will one day be a grandfather, and I spend a good deal of time showing my own children how to be good stewards of the earth. I also teach them to question the information that inundates each of us - and look to the motivations that might reveal the true intent of that information.

The global warming junta has been inflicted by self-interest and outright misinformation for decades now.

A recent poll showed of 20 listed concerns for Americans, it placed dead last. That is appropriate - while the media continues to advocate for its importance, Americans have been tuning it out for a number of years now. And while the interests of the Go Green campaign currently spends millions to ensure the profit making potential of the Cap n Trade scheme is implimented, I feel enough Americans are now willing to call bulls-it on this scam.

For that I am grateful - for myself, and for my children.

 

[Chris]

I am waiting for scientist to tell us what the earth's optimum temp should be. If we do not have the answer to that, how do we know that the earth is too warm or is headed that way?

Because the poles are melting.

That doesn't answer the question. What is the earth's optimum temperature? That's like saying "because I said so". Try again?

Wrong.

If the Antarctic ice melts, the ocean will rise 200 feet and whole nations will be wiped out.

So we need to keep the earth cool enough to keep the Antarctic ice from melting.